thank you, joe. let's get right to jeff toobin, cnn's senior legal analyst, author of "the oath: the obama white house and the supreme court." we know that an dsandra day o'cr said we won't have to talk about this for another 25 years. clearly, she was wrong. >> the supreme court is different. the facts of the case are not significantly different. every court that has look ed at this issue since 2003 has simply followed justice o'connor's instructions in the university of michigan case and said diversity can be a legitimate goal of college admissions. certainly the only implication you can draw by the fact that the supreme court agreed to hear this case is that at least some ju justices think justice o'connor was gone and want to get rid of the consideration of race and affi affirmative action in university admissions. >> when you look at the aabigail noel fisher versus the university of texas at austin, there's a conflict between the xiv amendment and those that say they can have their own policy ad